EPTPossible reason why Blizzard dropped LAN support - Also c…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:22 Tom Phoenix wrote: Perhaps some sort of middle ground can be reached? I know that Steam uses some sort of Offline mode to allow LAN play. Perhaps Battle.net will make use of something similar? I'm hoping so, although it wouldn't solve 100% of the problem. The only issue is that Blizzard said "No LAN mode", which is different than just "LAN, but need initial log-in." Maybe Blizzard can clarify on it. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:12 sely wrote: So you think you should be able to purchase 1 copy of the game and install and play it on 2 computers? That's dumb. Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation. | ||
|
Bebop Berserker
United States246 Posts
 . Here is my counter argument: Stop bitching about pirating! I love how people are throwing numbers out like 90% of the game was pirated. There is no way to tell that unless you count downloads to copies bought.... which is still fucking wrong. Its a poor ass estimation. Everyone understands if a game is good that you need to go pay for it. Otherwise there won't be anymore. Just one thing I couldn't get past: 1.) BUSINESSES ARE NOT CHARITIES NOR IS ANYONE ASKING THAT! However as i stated before... extreme cases of capitalism have either really good or really bad short term effects. This lack of LAN is a short term + for a long term - . Blizzard will reduce piracy and in effect force everyone to play over the internet. Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet. Hope Bnet doesn't go down and hope that blizzard keeps their antihack's in shape(Have yet to do so (see Starcraft, Warcraft I, II & III , Diablo I & II, ect. ect.)) Why is it okay that Blizzard can take away Lan support to make money but wont ensure hacking stops? Because 1 gets them money. Im not asking Blizzard to "Be a charity." Im asking One of the last few decent game making companies to have some sympathy. Because in the end, whenever Valve, Nintendo, and Blizzard are the only companies left.... They will each be extremely responsible for their own genres. I refuse to buy Blizzard's shitty games. I allow them to make WOW (the reason gaming sucks today) shove some high graphical mediocre stale game play to people. Im okay with that, because they make Some of the best games known to man. I will support Blizzard through all of their shit Fuck if blizzard asked for $10 from every gamer right now I would send a check in. I just ask they do the same damn thing for me. The "role" of a motherfucking business isn't to make money! its to serve the people!!!!! get your shit straight. The reason America has no customer service, the reason you have to sit on hold for three hours to fix a 2 minute electrical problem, the reason when I go to McDonalds and order tomatoes and I dont get any and they dont get my change right and then the dude at circuit city in electronics doesnt know what a Gigahertz is... its all because of THIS MENTALITY: Business are here to make money. Demand some service so that to make money companies sat least have to pretend to serve people. Maybe this is all a stunt, but its not a cool one blizzard. Don't start fucking your customers Blizzard. You and Nintendo are the only companies truly left. I write all of this because I love Blizzard not because I don't want them to make money. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:17 despite wrote: I could't care less about piracy. All I want is a good game and i don't care if my friend or anyone pirated the game in order to play me. You are e fukin troll for not reading other people's posts when at least 10 diferent people stated that removing LAN takes away from the game. Nobody here is FOR piracy so I don't see what you are trying to prove apart from trolling everyone who has more experience in LAN gaming than you do. Except Blizzard doesn't (and shouldn't) make decisions based on personal sentiments. Yes, you might not care about piracy, but as a company, Blizzard does. I'm not sure how resorting to ad hominems will do. Most of the pro-LAN-removal advocates in this thread are in agreement that this move is justified by Blizzard as an anti-piracy measure, not that 'LAN IS USELESS' or 'YOU'RE ALL PIRATE LOVERS' (the latter would be completely off the wall, and hilarious). Everybody understands that removing LAN will take something away from the game (LAN, specifically), but you need to understand that it will also help Blizzard combat pirating and reduce their sales lost from it. And @Polis: I'm not going to disagree outright that LAN would do nothing in helping extend the shelf life of Starcraft 2. However, until Battle.net 2.0 (and all of its subsequent features) is released, I don't think it's particularly fair to the company to judge (these particular issues, at least). And I was talking about a business' role in society, not the role of its parts. I would argue that the 'developer' really has no role in a society outside of that of the business. After all, without the business, there is no developer. As such, a developer has no obligation to society as a whole, no more, at the very least, than the business. On July 02 2009 05:27 Polis wrote: Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation. There's definitely a fallacy in there, but I can't even seem to make it out. Basically, just because Starcraft sold 10 million despite the existence of spawn, it doesn't then translate that spawn installs don't hinder the sales of a game. It could well be possible that, with sales lost with people sticking to spawn installs among their friends, they could've sold double the amount (unlikely, but without statistical evidence either way, this really does prove nothing). And, of course, removing LAN does not automatically translate to removing the future of the game, as you're suggesting. Starcraft supported LAN; Starcraft had long lasting appeal; Starcraft 2 will not support LAN; Therefore, Starcraft 2 will not have long lasting appeal. See the flaw in that argument? | ||
|
sely
United States30 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:27 Polis wrote: Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation. I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option. There is so much self-righteousness in this thread it's absurd. Please realize that no matter how many hundreds or thousands of hours you spent playing SC1, Blizzard does not owe you anything. They created a game that has given you so much enjoyment over the years that maybe (just maybe) you should put off getting red in the face about the LAN thing until you at lease see a beta. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option. And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
Lament capitalist society all you want, but the fact of the matter is (and where Blizzard is concerned), business exists for the profit of its owners. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote: Basically, just because Starcraft sold 10 million despite the existence of spawn, it doesn't then translate that spawn installs don't hinder the sales of a game. I did not say that it didn't. What I had said that Blizzard was a company that gave this feature before, and it did not stopped it from being a success. There is a spectrum of what developers can be mostly aiming for: maximum possible profit(1) - some gray are(2) - best possible service(3). Not perfect since some service is good for profit, but good enough to show my point. What I am claiming is that Blizzard is moved closer to (1), while it was between (3) and (2) in the past, and that it had no financial necessarily to make more profit, they games are popular enough. So the only explanation that I am left with is greed. On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote:It could well be possible that, with sales lost with people sticking to spawn installs among their friends, they could've sold double the amount (unlikely, but without statistical evidence either way, this really does prove nothing). Only to elaborate on spawn versions: spawn don't work in that way it is to limited for that. It works great if you want to play with somebody that had visited you or with your brother. On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote:Starcraft supported LAN; Starcraft had long lasting appeal; Starcraft 2 will not support LAN; Therefore, Starcraft 2 will not have long lasting appeal. I did not said that. I had said that we are depended on what blizzard will do with bn 2.0 in the future (how good the support will), and that in the past we were not. If they will go with they philosophy of making as much money as possible, and if they will not make enough off esports then likely SC2 on bn 2.0 will be full of cheaters, and with ladder that only offers old maps. | ||
|
sely
United States30 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:57 Spawkuring wrote: And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is. I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On July 02 2009 05:37 Bebop Berserker wrote: Here is my counter argument: Stop bitching about pirating! I love how people are throwing numbers out like 90% of the game was pirated. There is no way to tell that unless you count downloads to copies bought.... which is still fucking wrong. Its a poor ass estimation. No, it isn't. Just by looking at the number of seeds on a torrent and then a legitimate sales number you can see that most PC games have piracy rates of AT LEAST 15-20%, and way higher for casual games like Sims 3 or Spore. Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet. God, you're full of BS. You're going to play a starcraft match in a 10 minute period between classes? Or maybe the first thing you do at your grandmothers house is unpack your laptop and mousepad and tell her: hey I haven't seen you in a year, but wait, let me play a couple matches with my college buddies first. And btw, most grandparents are now tech savvy enough to have at least internet. Why is it okay that Blizzard can take away Lan support to make money but wont ensure hacking stops? Blizzard is much better than most, with the possible exception of Valve/steam at stopping hackers, maybe not in the 1997 battle.net, but I haven't seen many complaints about WC3 hacking so far, so they are doing something right. I refuse to buy Blizzard's shitty games. Why don't you write a blog about it. I allow them to make WOW (the reason gaming sucks today) shove some high graphical mediocre stale game play to people. Good thing they didn't forget to ASK YOUR PERMISSION. The "role" of a motherfucking business isn't to make money! its to serve the people!!!!! get your shit straight. The reason America has no customer service, the reason you have to sit on hold for three hours to fix a 2 minute electrical problem, the reason when I go to McDonalds and order tomatoes and I dont get any and they dont get my change right and then the dude at circuit city in electronics doesnt know what a Gigahertz is... its all because of THIS MENTALITY: Business are here to make money. Well if you eat at McDonalds and shop for PC gear at Circuit City, that certainly explains a lot of things. | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:05 Polis wrote: I did not say that it didn't. What I had said that Blizzard was a company that gave this feature before, and it did not stopped it from being a success. fixed: No offense meant I just wanted to make it clear for everyone. | ||
|
Bebop Berserker
United States246 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:06 sely wrote: I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like. Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups..... | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:04 Yenzilla wrote: @Bebop Berserker: Lament capitalist society all you want, but the fact of the matter is (and where Blizzard is concerned), business exists for the profit of its owners. That is simply incorrect. Business exist for the reason on why it was created, and there is a profit that it must have to sustain itself. There is many examples of people working on less lucrative (less commercial) projects as they business. There is no magical rule that forces business to work only with the profit in mind. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:09 despite wrote: fixed: No offense meant I just wanted to make it clear for everyone. Oh, okay. Feature changes that post altogether, that then throws half my disagreements and confusions out the window. | ||
|
sely
United States30 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:10 Bebop Berserker wrote: Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups..... I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection. | ||
|
ZeitgeistMovie
144 Posts
| ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
A time to think a little of context, and relevance with current events. Blizzard is going to be releasing a Beta, of a game called StarCraft 2. Limited numbers of people are invited to this Beta. The beta will be 4-6 months duration (that means must WAIT for SC2 for 4-6 months) If it is pirated, even those who can afford to pay will pirate and play on LAN. By the time 4-6 months is up, there might very well be a pirate LAN scene that is too big to compete with even when Bnet becomes official. With all this in mind, even without the freetards talking about their rights to steal a Ferrari because they can't afford one, do you honestly think its feasible that Blizzard would let a game become pirated to this extent enough to challenge the purpose of even buying the game in the first place? When ANYONE in this forum can tell me, hand on heart, that if it has LAN they wont have a 'wee play' with a pirated copy before the full game comes out, then you might have half a change of justifying yourselves. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On July 02 2009 08:23 Tyraz wrote: Actually, do you know what would REALLY be funny? A time to think a little of context, and relevance with current events. Blizzard is going to be releasing a Beta, of a game called StarCraft 2. Limited numbers of people are invited to this Beta. The beta will be 4-6 months duration (that means must WAIT for SC2 for 4-6 months) If it is pirated, even those who can afford to pay will pirate and play on LAN. By the time 4-6 months is up, there might very well be a pirate LAN scene that is too big to compete with even when Bnet becomes official. With all this in mind, even without the freetards talking about their rights to steal a Ferrari because they can't afford one, do you honestly think its feasible that Blizzard would let a game become pirated to this extent enough to challenge the purpose of even buying the game in the first place? When ANYONE in this forum can tell me, hand on heart, that if it has LAN they wont have a 'wee play' with a pirated copy before the full game comes out, then you might have half a change of justifying yourselves. And yet again with the "You want LAN therefore you are a pirate" accusation. Please read the thread. | ||
|
NukezaFlyin
United States10 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:18 sely wrote: I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection. Yeah, but it still sucks that in order to play in a barn I have to hook up someones cellphone to a router for all of us to play one game of Starcraft II. Not to mention I dont know anyone with a cellphone plan that lets them use the internet cheaply. I guess we'll see just how they do it and how it works out in a couple of months. | ||
| ||
